INCENTIVES AND OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTING

INTER-ORGANISATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY

Raija Halonen

and Veikko Halonen

Department of Information Processing Science,University of Oulu,P.O.Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Raahe Unit, University of Oulu, Rantakatu 7, FI-92100 Raahe, Finland

Keywords: Interoperability, Implementation, Inter-organisational information system, Incentives and obstacles.

Abstract: This paper explores the incentives and obstacles that rise when implementing interoperability in

organisations. In the focus we have an inter-organisational information system that has interfaces with

several information systems managed by different organisations. Inter-organisational information systems

are often connected to the information systems that are aimed to support functionalities in the partnering

organisations and that are implemented earlier, even several years earlier in the organisations. This

complexity increases degrees of difficulty of the implementation projects. In this paper we argue that there

are obstacles that are not noticed or understood in the very beginning when the idea of implementing a joint

information system is emerged. On the other hand, we found that mutual trust is an important factor to

support the interoperability between the organisations. We limit this paper to consider only inter-

organisational information systems that are implemented to support pre-defined joint functionalities.

1 INTRODUCTION

Modern technology enables organisations to interact

with each other without physical contact or

attendance (Markus, 2006). Close interaction is

necessary when enterprises and other organisations

collaborate with their partners or with their

surrounding society. Inter-organisational

information systems (Johnston & Vitale, 1988) are

planned to transfer information across organisational

borderlines. In recent years inter-organisational

information systems have increasingly tended to

support partnering among organisations (Hong,

2002) and organisations should link with each other

to perform effectively in present-day environments

(Daniel & White, 2005).

In this paper we explore the issues that

organisations face when they are building a joint

information system. We want to know what drives

these organisations towards a common target. We

argue that there are issues that are not noticed or

understood in the very beginning when the idea

about a joint effort is emerged. “It’s a question of

politics instead of technology”, as was recorded in a

project memorandum. In this respect we want to

highlight that by reacting on the changing situations

early enough the output may be even more satisfying

than what was thought in the early stages of the

project.

Our research methods were case study (Yin,

2003) and participatory observation (Flick, 1999).

The study material was gathered from a single case

where several organisations decided to implement an

information system to support their collaboration.

The research approach was very subjective and the

interpretations based mainly on subjective

experiences. However, there were several sources

used when performing the study and the principles

expressed by Klein and Myers (1999) acted as a

backbone in the research.

2 IMPLEMENTATION AND

INTEROPERABILITY

We consider implementation as an entire process

from needs analysis and choice of technological

solution, to the realisation of the full benefits from

the technology (Munkvold, 1999). Information

system implementations are also instances of

organisational change (Davis & Olson, 1985,

Sawyer & Southwick, 2002). Organisations and

549

Halonen R. and Halonen V. (2007).

INCENTIVES AND OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTING INTER-ORGANISATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY.

In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - DISI, pages 549-552

DOI: 10.5220/0002359805490552

 SciTePress

information systems are closely related because

there is ever growing interdependence between

business strategy and information systems and

telecommunications (Laudon & Laudon, 1998). Any

change in this relationship requires changes in other

components of the relationship. Organisational

aspects are recognised as key factors in the

reasonable use of information technology (Southon

et al., 1999). Organisations have differing cultures

that are affected by the events of the past and by the

climate of the present, by the technology of the type

of work, by their aims and the kind of people that

work in them (Handy, 1999).

Before any information system can be

implemented, a lot of background work must be

performed (Laudon & Laudon, 1998). Laudon and

Laudon note that understanding information systems

requires understanding the problems they are

designed to solve, their architectural and design

elements and the organisational processes that lead

to these solutions. Likewise, Halonen (2007)

emphasises the need to understand and know the

process thoroughly.

Furthermore, trust is recognised as an important

part of business as a facilitator of transactions

(Gustafsson, 1996, Kramer, 1999). Trust plays three

interrelated roles in inter-organisational

relationships: it acts as an obstacle to opportunistic

behaviour, it substitutes for hierarchical governance

and it provides a competitive advantage (Karahannas

& Jones, 1999). In addition, prevailing trust

influences people’s willingness to comply with

organisation’s directives and regulations and their

willingness to voluntarily defer to organisational

authorities (Kramer, 1999).

3 RESEARCH APPROACH

Our research was qualitative and it required the

researchers to interpret the incidents (Walsham

1995). We also recognised the principles introduced

by Klein and Myers (1999) for conducting and

evaluating interpretive case studies. Especially the

principle of interaction between the researchers and

the subjects was realised by several discussions,

emails and encounters in the study.

The idea behind the principles is to offer an

approach that enables more rigour to conduct and

report results of case studies (Klein & Myers, 1999).

This was possible when the researchers carefully

considered how and which of the principles applied

in any particular research setting.

The empirical material was gathered

remembering Yin’s notion: an exemplary case study

includes five features: 1) significance, 2) being

“complete”, 3) considering alternative perspectives,

4) displaying sufficient evidence, and 5) composed

in an engaging manner (Yin, 2003). The case was

reported by bearing in mind the idea of van der

Blonk (2003) when he states that cases are written

with a purpose that heads to the goal of the research

project. Further, Walsham (1995) notices how an in-

depth case study necessitates frequent visits to the

field site over an extended period of time.

In the present study, one of the researchers was

involved in the research scene acting as a project

manager for several years (2003-2006). From the

beginning, she wrote a personal research diary (c.f.

Schultze, 2000), and at the end of the project there

were notes about 350 days. However, the research

approach was not emphasised in the project

meetings because the utmost goal from the

organisational view was to get the information

system implemented. On the other hand, the research

role of the project manager was explained in the first

meeting (Memorandum June 16, 2003) and it was

never hidden from the attendees.

4 THE CASE AND FINDINGS

The case consists of an information system project

where an inter-organisational information system

(called I-System in this paper) was designed and

implemented to be piloted before taking into nation-

wide use. The participating organisations had their

representatives in the project group and a

commercial vendor was hired to implement the

system.

The information system was highly waited for

and also people outside the project were interested in

its progress. The project manager wrote into her

diary June 16, 2003: “They also told me about a new

agreement and how it necessitates an information

system.” The importance of the new information

system was realised by one participant in a meeting:

“If the information system will not be implemented,

the actions will be declined in our organisation. The

stipulation for the nation-wide actions will be an

information system!” (Memorandum September 12,

2003). The high motivation was also expressed in

words by the chairman in the same meeting: “Our

motive is to get this information system as soon as

possible because it’s impossible to act in the current

way.”

The commitment was not consistent, though. On

the contrary, also negative comments were

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

550

expressed: “sRegister [pseudonym] does not want to

be involved if they have no role of their own.”

Another message came from an attendee to the

project manager and thus she denied their

involvement into the work of the project group:

“vOrganisation [pseudonym] will only participate

by separately made agreements.”

We perceived other problems with commitment

by some of the participating organisations. The

project manager got email (September 16, 2004): "It

really seems that all tasks that were assigned to

Acro [pseudonym] are left half-way." There were

problems with the user organisations, too. The

project manager got email May 12, 2005: “The

situation is as before. We’ll start the technical

implementation at the end of the summer.” This

email discussion continued on February 10, 2006:

“The progress has been slow. The specifications are

almost ready. We’ll try to get this fixed in the second

quarter.” However, the assignment was not

completed until the project was ended.

We also perceived reluctance in delivering

information in organisations when there was need to

get changes made in other information systems. On

several occasions it was found that knowledge was

not available there where it was needed. “I’m sorry

about this outburst but we really don’t know

anything about this task and this ‘cgi’ is everything

we have been told even if we wanted to know

something else about it, too!” (Email August 8,

2005).

The users expressed their trust when

participating in the development work. Also the

project managers felt deep trust on each other: “This

email is only for you …” (Email September 16,

2004). In addition, several SMSs were sent even late

in the evening telling about the progress: “JK got

today a preliminary version of the new XML reader

ready. Use of memory 2Mb, use of CPU 100 % when

reading in, dummy courses 200000, file size 139 Mb.

Time 6 secs, with full debug 4 min. With database

latent 30 secs. This sounds really promising!” (SMS

9:36 pm October 15, 2005).

The project members were used to trust on each

other and they kept saying in project meetings: “Of

course we rely on that [they] offer qualitative

[services] and do not suspect it.”(Diary October 25,

2005). “I don’t believe that anybody would on

purpose do wrong or anything unauthorised.”

(Diary November 4, 2006)

At the end of the project the response received

from the users was mainly positive and supportive.

Altogether 580 feedback notes were received. The

received feedback enabled us to interpret also the

output from the users’ point of view. The feedback

was divided in three categories: contents and

development 520 notes; technical issues 46 notes;

and other 14 notes. As the order of categories was as

listed above, the order may have influenced the

numbers per category. However, the feedback

messages discussed either the perceived

observations, use of I-System or problems with

finding additional information. The main impression

was positive and the users were grateful for the

possibility to use the system without need of

footwork or to send paper forms to different

organisations.

5 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-organisational information systems differ from

intra-organisational information systems in several

aspects. Firstly, they are accessed by users from

several organisations instead of only one

organisation. Secondly, the data inserted in the

information system is influenced by information

systems managed by people coming from other

organisations. Thirdly, the database of the

information system is influenced by people coming

from several organisations instead of people hired by

one organisation and who follow procedures used in

that organisation.

In the present study, the main driver towards

higher interoperability of the participating

organisations was the fact that mutual cooperation

was practically impossible without a joint

information system. We saw that this motivation

was strongly pushing the implementation project

forward. Also, trust was perceived to support

interoperability between organisations and its role

was emphasised especially when developing and

taking I-System into use. Trust was present in the

project meetings when discussing the procedures

and transferring information between organisations.

Although high motivation was expressed in the

project meetings, the commitment of the same

participants was not necessarily consistent. Some of

the organisations could not even complete their

assignments before the end of the implementation

project. Also, one of the main obstacles was the

reluctance to deliver the needed information inside

the participating organisations, especially in the case

of distributed departments and units. This lack of

information sharing inhibited future development

and influenced also plans to develop I-System.

These issues were not noticed or understood in the

INCENTIVES AND OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTING INTER-ORGANISATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY

551

beginning when the idea of implementing a joint

information system was emerged.

The findings of the present work came from a

single case. Despite that, we believe that the issues

found in this research can be quite common to all

projects that are implementing inter-organisational

interoperability. Future study could deepen the

analysis, especially to give a better understanding of

the influence of the organisational structure on the

information sharing.

REFERENCES

Baskerville, R., 1992, The Developmental Duality of

Information Systems Security. Journal of

Management System 4 (1): 1-22

Blonk. van der H., 2003. Writing case studies in

information systems research. Journal of Information

Technology 18 (1): 45-52.

Daniel, E.M. & White, A., 2005, The future of inter-

organisational system linkages: findings of an

international Delphi study. European Journal of

Information Systems 14 (2): 188-203.

Davis, G.B. & Olson, M.H., 1985, Management

information systems: Conceptual foundations,

structure and development. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, p 561-601

Flick, U., 1999, An Introduction to Qualitative Research,

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Gefen, D. & Ridings, C.M., 2003, IT Acceptance:

Managing User – IT Group Boundaries. The DATA

BASE for Advances in Information Systems 34 (3): 25-

40.

Gustafsson, M., 1996, The Power of Trust. Nr 185

Preliminära forskningsrapporter, Åbo Akademis

tryckeri, Åbo

Halonen, R., 2007, Digitized information management:

The dynamic information system. Journal of Digital

Information Management 5 (1): 23-29.

Handy, C., 1999, Understanding organizations. London:

Penguin Books, p 180-216.

Hong, I.B., 2002, A new framework for

interorganisational systems based on the linkage of

participants’ roles. Information & Management 39:

261-270.

Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. & Dexter, A.S., 1995,

Electronic data Interchange and Small Organizations:

Adoption and Impact of Technology. MIS Quarterly

19 (4): 465-485.

Johnston, H.R. & Vitale, M.R., 1988, Creating

Competitive Advantage with Interorganizational

Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 12 (2): 153-165.

Karahannas, M.V. & Jones, M. 1999, Interorganizational

systems and trust in strategic alliances. In: De P &

DeGross JI (Eds.): Proceedings of the Twentieth

International Conference on Information Systems,

December 13-15, 1999 Charlotte, North Carolina,

USA. Association for Information Systems, Atlanta,

GA, USA, p 346-357.

Klein, K. & Myers, M., 1999, A set of principles for

conducting and evaluating interpretative field studies

in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 67-94.

Kramer, R.M., 1999., Trust and Distrust in Organizations:

Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions, Annual

Review of Psychology 50: 569-598.

Laudon, K.C. & Laudon, J.P., 1998, Management

Information Systems, New Approaches to

Organization and Technology. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall, p 4-33, 506-537.

Markus, M.L., 2006, Building Successful

Interorganizational Systems. In: Chen, C.-S., Filipe, J.,

Secura, I. & Cordeiro, J. (Eds.) Enterprise Information

Systems VII, Heidelberg, Springer.

Mumford, E., 2003,

Redesigning Human Systems.

Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Munkvold, B.E., 1999, Challenges of IT implementation

for supporting collaboration in distributed

organizations. European Journal of Information

Systems, 8: 260-272.

Sawyer, S. & Southwick, R., 2002, Temporal Issues in

Information and Communication Technology-Enabled

Organizational Change: Evidence From an Enterprise

Systems Implementation, The Information Society, 18:

263-280.

Schultze, U., 2000, A Confessional Account of an

Ethnography About Knowledge Work. MIS Quarterly

24 (1): 3-41.

Shibboleth, 2006, http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/.

(Accessed November 20, 2006)

Southon, G., Sauer, C. & Dampney, C.N.G., 1999,

Lessons from a failed information systems initiative:

issues for complex organisations, International

Journal of Medical Informatics 55: 33-46.

Walsham, G., 1995, Interpretive case studies in IS

research: nature and method, European Journal of

Information Systems 4: 74-81.

Yin, R.K., 2003, Case Study Research. Design and

Methods. Third Edition. London: SAGE Publications.

ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

552